You started off saying that the book is based in pseudo science and then later you stated that no matter how abbreviated the pseudo science is it still made the book based in pseudo science. That pretty much says you view the book as being wholly pseudo. Even after knowing that the pseudo science your accusing to be in the book is in fact not even the same science you still regarded it to be based in pseudo science. You seemed very hard press, in spite of all the evidence, to believe it's based in pseudo junk. What else would you call science that isn't true? I'm not putting any words in your mouth, I'm just working with what you're giving me here.
So here are more facts, but from the other way, from the point of how the brain works. The Left/Right Brian stuff is still mostly true. If you remember I noted that Edwards changed her tune after the 1st edition, she wanted to avoid the location controversy. What was wrong about earlier brain hemisphere theories was that particular cognitive faculties didn't reside in only one or the other. What theories insist now is that it's not the particulars that are residing in the left or right it's how they focus on the world that is. Edwards theories still works regardless of the changes because she focused on the mechanics of attention. She original used Sperry's work to inform about what the brain was doing, that doesn't change the psychology that Edwards says was happening. The science is there and it's still science.
Here is a short animation of Ian McGilchrist explaining about the divided brain. (Now you won't be bothered to read something, you can just watch and listen) Take note about the despair from earlier theories and also later as he explains what the right side does. If you really did read Edwards book you could draw parallels to what McGilchrist is saying and you should be able to conclude Edwards was right about a lot things.
My whole point is this. All the digs about Edwards book aren't true. There is no pseudo science in her book, it's not even based on the science that is being called pseudo. Everything that you're saying is wrong in her book isn't true. All the reasons you're saying to not buy into her explanations aren't true either. That's the point to all this. You and others like you are basically wrong about what you're accusing about Edward's book.